Is 'hate speech' protected under the 1st Amendment?

[Sonny Tufts]

ALL speech is protected. The 1A is an all-or-nothing deal for reasons one would hope were crystal clear. That it has been interpreted away by the courts to what is now effectively a state-given privilege... well, you know.

Defamation and fraudulent misrepresentations were never intended to be protected by 1A.

 

[oyarde]

Yeah but those treaties cost you a lot of valuable peyote growing land.

My people signed no treaties , I still claim the land . All I have to do is patiently wait until everyone is too fat, dumb and lazy to resist and then I can expel them. Pc. of cake, the time could be near, LOL

 

[cajuncocoa]

Speech is protected unless it's hurtful or mean or violates anyone's safe space

I didn't take you for a special snowflake!!

 

[TheTexan]

I didn't take you for a special snowflake!!

We all deserve love and respect.

(except illegals and muslims)

 

[cajuncocoa]

We all deserve love and respect.

(except illegals and muslims)

That's how it was back in the day...(but with no exceptions.) It's not about being "politically correct"...it's about not being rude. If you don't have anything nice to say, STFU.

 

[euphemia]

The first amendment means the government can't stop you from stupidity, but they don't necessarily protect you from the consequences of your stupidity, either. If you decide to say something inappropriate, then don't call the police when the object of your stupidity punches you in the mouth.

 

[osan]

Defamation and fraudulent misrepresentations were never intended to be protected by 1A.

Point taken. I only zeroed in on threats and neglected to include these.

However, I would have to think on "defamation". Is it a crime? Perhaps, perhaps not. It is fodder for civil action in any event.

Fraud is a crime, which of course would render it unprotected.

Now that I'm thinking of it, is assault a crime? Not sure, but thinking perhaps not. If I threaten you, is it not up to you to choose your response?

ETA: upon further consideration, fraudulent speech actually IS protected. It is the acting in accord with the speech that is criminal. Spinning yarns is fraud of a sort, but is no crime.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Now that I'm thinking of it, is assault a crime? Not sure, but thinking perhaps not. If I threaten you, is it not up to you to choose your response?

ETA: upon further consideration, fraudulent speech actually IS protected. It is the acting in accord with the speech that is criminal. Spinning yarns is fraud of a sort, but is no crime.

Realize that the "no law" referred to in 1A covers civil law in addition to criminal law. For example, the Supreme Court ruled decades ago that 1A bars a public figure from recovering for defamation in a civil suit unless he can prove the defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

In the Anglo-American legal system assault has been a crime and the basis for a civil suit for about 700 years. The basis for it is that one shouldn't be put in fear for his safety -- e.g., if I swing a baseball bat at your head with the intent of knocking your brains all over the floor but I miss, it's still an assault.

Regarding fraud, it's not necessary that the person making the fraudulent statement take any further action, although in many cases he may, such as a used car salesman lying about a lemon he sells to someone. But suppose a public company puts out phony reports about its condition (think Enron) and someone buys its stock on the open market in reliance on the reports. The company has committed fraud even though it took no further action after making its statement.

 

[osan]

In the Anglo-American legal system assault has been a crime and the basis for a civil suit for about 700 years. The basis for it is that one shouldn't be put in fear for his safety

Point taken.

 

[bunklocoempire]

My son has been taught NEVER to call the kops, for any reason.

The simple fact that you would entertain the notion speaks loudly.

Be a man and handle it, or don't, but for Heavens sake don't look to government to be a man in your stead.

A great point to hammer home, and that's one way to put it. I used to call the cops, and I still have family and friends that see calling the cops as some sort of solution -I offer my advice on the matters of police as they come up and thoroughly take them through each step of what exactly is happening.
(note to self: stay off of tod evans' grass) Another way to put it is:

Take the best course of honest action, while not supporting the aggression of others.

What is "manly" about it IMO, is simply stripping away any illusion that poor ideas are going to be any kind substitute for an honest action requiring human contact.
Honest interaction between humans, is not what the current government machine promotes, thus, the state wants you to call it's agents All. The. Time.
Call an uncle, call a neighbor, call anyone for help, but don't call the state.

On Topic-

The fact that there is a discussion about hate speech and the first amendment tells me that the 1st has not been protected.
Speech is ideas in a tangible medium. Love is an idea, hate of someone, or some thing is an idea.

The state promotes bad ideas, and not surprisingly, the state wants to tell you which ideas are "bad".

The 1st is selectively protected, by an institution that has no honest use for it.

 

[Jerry C]

The problem with restricting hate speech is that various authoritarian groups can define and re define it to mean anything they disagree with whether said opinions are truly hateful or not. Protecting hate speech does mean that bigots will be free to express bigoted opinions, but that is a small price to pay for being able to express controversial ideas and opinions that may in fact actually express good ideas.